Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Here is proof that YOU made a difference, if you have been a member and/or responded to 80-20's many calls.
Together, whichever issue we have selected to fight and fight courageously, benefits befall the Asian Am community. See another proof below.
See a Chronicle of High Ed article -- the most authoritative paper in high ed. below. The article reports that Fisher's lawyers (as in Fisher v. U. of Texas) have recently added an emphasis on the discrimination against Asian Am students caused by the "race-conscious" college admission policy. The Fisher brief now aims for a more ambitious goal -- "scrapping the Supreme Court's endorsement of race-conscious admission." 80-20 has worked closely with the Fisher side.

The above article proves at least one thing. Whichever way the Court will eventually rule, our joint effort has helped bring the discrimination against Asian Am college applicants squarely into the conscious of the nation. The credit goes to YOU!
In contrast, some Asian Am orgs are still going for political correctness at the expense of our youngster's equal opportunity to enter colleges.
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) and a number of other Asian Am. organizations, including Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC), announced that they will file amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to support the current "race-conscious" admission policy!!! Margaret Fung is the Exec. Director of AALDEF. E-mail her via info@aaldef.org Don't mince words with them anymore. There is not enough time now. Just tell them that you'll do your best to urge all your friends and relatives to withdraw their support from a group like hers. A few thousand emails may yet do the job.
Pass the word please. Post your comments on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp.
Kindly please sign your real identity and show the courage of your conviction.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Battles in the Supreme Court AND in the court of public opinion have BEGUN. Please FORWARD this e-newsletter.

Purpose? To reverse or substantially weaken the current "race-conscious" college admission policy. [A] In Our Nation's Highest Court, 80-20 has
(1) partnered with Brandeis Center For Human Rights, a well-known Jewish org., to co-file an amicus brief. Kenneth Marcus, Center's President, was staff director of The federal Civil Rights Commission.
Marcus said,"It wasn't right for the Ivies to limit Jewish students then, it's not right for Ivies to limit Asian Ams students now." http://brandeiscenter.com/ .
(2) engaged Alan Gura, a constitutional law specialist, who recently won an unexpected and important case in the Supreme Court. http://gurapossessky.com/wordpress/attorneys/alan-gura/ .
(3) An amicus brief shall be filed by us on May 29th.[B] In the Court of Public Opinion, 80-20 has greatly
(1) publicized IRREFUTABLE evidence of shocking discrimination against AsAms by "race-conscious" admission policy: To receive equal consideration by elite colleges, Asian Americans must outperform* Whites by 140 points, Hispanics by 280 points, Blacks by 450 points in SAT (Total 1600).
(2) publicized RECENT newspaper articles focused on the connection between the earlier Jewish experience in Ivies and the recent AsAm experience. See for instance a 4/29/12 Chronicle of Higher Ed article http://chronicle.com/article/Asian-Americans-the-New-Jews/131729/ . [C] What Is 80-20 Trying To Achieve Thru. [A] & [B]?
Many Supreme Court justices are quite aware of how the Ivies limited the number of Jewish students when they themselves were attending colleges. A joint brief with the Brandeis Center may help invoke their sense of injustice that Asian Am students face today.We want to thank Mr. Marcus, Mr. Gura and others in the legal & Jewish Am. community for helping to forge this strategy. [D] A Silver Lining?When we begin to fight for ourselves, others may then help as seen in [A] & [B] above. Others may even respond positively. See below:
A possible exam 5ba6 ple is a 15% increase in Harvard's offer to AsAm students THIS year (class of 2016) as compared with the past 5 years. See below:
80-20 fights for you. Disturbingly, APALC, headed by Stewart Kwoh ( skwoh@apalc.org ) goes out of its way to support a "race-conscious" college admission policy. Pls. continue to reason & plead with him. If he refuses to respect our community's overwhelming consensus, then hold him ACCOUNTABLE.
COMMENT on our Posterboard please. Click on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp.Kindly please sign your real identity and show the courage of your conviction.

Monday, May 14, 2012

I know this father who sent me this story about his son's recent experience in applying to colleges. I hope that Asian Am elected officials, and leaders of Asian Am. civic & civil rights organizations are paying attention. Let's press them to be accountable to us. S.B.

Martin's Experience in Applying to Colleges"Martin had a 4.35* weighted GPA, 33 ACT score, he took four subject SAT, & more than 10 AP tests during his high school years. Martin ranked 7th out of 455 high school graduates according to his junior year weighted school transcript. He was a high school varsity tennis team member for four years and captain and number one single for the last two years. He was also a city teen council member for 4 years, vice president & then the president for the last two years. The city teen council organizes teens to do various volunteer work & make our city a better place to live. Martin worked for the city Parks & Recreational Division as a volunteer tennis coach during semesters for 4 years, & he worked as a summer tennis camp counselor for pay in his Junior & Senior years.

But in the 2012 college admission season, Martin was rejected by Harvard, UPenn, Cornell, Georgetown, and Duke University. On the other hand, Martin was accepted by UC Berkeley with a Regents & Chancellors Scholarship, the highest award for undergraduates with only 800 total slots (200 for freshmen) for all students at Berkeley. Martin was also accepted by UCLA, UCSD, UC Davis and UC Irvine with combined merit/need based scholarships. "

What's the Difference between UC System & those Private Colleges?
This father continues, "What is the difference between the UC systems and selective colleges on the East Coast? Different admission policies! UC adopted a more race-neutral admission policy after Prop. 209 and Bakke v. UC Davis Supreme Court case, while highly selective colleges outside California had a more race-conscious admission policy.

Some Asian Ams (especially those officials & civic leaders who support the Dem. Party - added by S. B. Woo) thought that there might be too many Asian American students in highly selective colleges based on our population percentage in the U.S. and we should share some opportunities with other under-represented minorities, even at a cost to our own kids. We found out on the Web site at http://www.hillel.org/index that both UPenn and Georgetown had a higher percentage of Jewish Americans than Asian Americans. The Jewish population is only about half of Asian Americans in the United States from the Census data. … >" (end)

*4.0 is the highest GPA. But weighted GPA which counts hard courses more may get above 4.0.

The subtitles above were added by S. B. Woo. Otherwise, everything between quotes are from this father, unless otherwise specified.
DON'T WAIT till your own children face the same unfair treatment as this family. WRITE & TALK to the Democratic elected officials & leaders of those AsAm civic and civil rights organizations, every chance you get. We must prevent our own people from mis-representing us. If they don't listen, then hold them accountable!

Assert your rights!

COMMENT on our Posterboard please. Click on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp. Kindly sign IN with your e-address ; after leaving your message, please sign OFF with your TRUE identity. In the US, the protection of free speech is absolute. Pls. show the courage of your conviction, so that our civic org. "leaders" will know that we are serious.

Monday, May 7, 2012

So should we be for AA? What do you think? Are we that dumb? Historically
In earlier days when the Civil Rights Movement first started, most Asian Ams including me were for AA. We thought that AA was a great way to achieve equal opportunity for ALL Americans. Empirically, however, Asian Ams got the short end of the stick in the SELECTIVE implementation of AA.
(a) AA hurt our Youth for "OVER-representation" in college by imposing the HIGHEST admission bar on Asian Am students, and
(b) outrageously, AA hurt our adults in workplaces ALSO by practically sanctioning the glaring "UNDER-representation" in management & let us suffer the LOWEST glass ceiling in spite of undisputed statistical evidence. Why? Because we are timid and politically immature. Did Asian Am civil rights organizations speak out? NO! Some, perhaps owing to their blind adherence to beliefs of the Democratic Party, even went out of their ways to support AA, e.g. filing legal briefs to support "race-conscious" college admission policy.
Will they still make that mistake TODAY?

Now

Asian Americans should UNITE to oppose AA as it is currently implemented. 80-20 EF advocates that the US should
(a) implement a "race neutral" college admission policy. We again appeal to the 4 Asian Am orgs, led by Stewart Kwoh of APALC, to stop supporting a "race-conscious" admission policy, and
(b) vigorously enforce Exec. Order 11246 to shatter the lowest glass ceiling that Asian Am adults STILL face in private corporations, university & federal government. Contradiction In Wanting Both?NO! In both cases we want a "race-neutral" policy -- to enter first-tier universities OR to enter managerial levels in workplaces, ACCORDING TO ABILITY.
We don't want favors done for AsAms to enter management. We only want to end discrimination against us -- the prejudice that we can be good students, good degress earners, good work horses but are incapable of being good managers.
We ONLY need our nation to be fair with us. In this "age of Asia," we, Asian Ams, can help make America more competitive.FORWARD THIS EMAIL. Political correctness exists among Asian ams too, perhaps especially among leaders of Asian Am. civil rights rights organizations.
COMMENT on our Posterboard please. Click on http://www.80-20educationalfoundation.org/politicaledu/posterboard.asp.
After the shameful dishonesty, whose source we now know, was exposed, it stopped. United, we get things done. Kindly please sign your real identity and show the courage of your conviction.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

ONE person posted 32 negative messages and plugged for a "race--conscious" college admission policy on EF's posterboard. This 1 person pretended to be different persons and to speak for different organizations. How did we know it was ONE person? All these messages came for ONE IP number 64.69.46.151. This person of course didn't leave a name or an email address on his posted messages.

Others who plugged for a "race-conscious" admission came mostly from IP numbers that begin with 207.7.149.xx and 209.237.253.xx. Again, they left neither names nor e-mail addresses on their posts.

What do they have to hide???

In contrast, ALL OF US behaved honorably. When we sent emails to Stewart Kwoh we give our names and at least our e-mail addresses.

To those wo don't agree with us, I like to suggest "You have your right to disagree with us. Do it honestly. We are all searching for the best way to win equal opportunity for Asian Ams. When you don't leave you name or e-address, you automatically lose people's confidence. Show the courage of your conviction, and we can have honest discussions. Let's at least disagree agreeably."